Main menu

NBC’s Clueless Boost for Putin

March 12, 2018

With the Russian president in the heat of a re-election campaign, Putin sat down to talk with NBC’s Megyn Kelly for an interview that enabled him to burnish his credentials to the Russian electorate, Ray McGovern explains.

By Ray McGovern

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s team swept a doubleheader on March 1, with his mid-day speech claiming strategic parity with the U.S., and then the nightcap duel with NBC’s Megyn Kelly. Any lingering doubt that Putin is a shoo-in for another term as President is now dispelled. Putin might consider sending NBC a thank-you note.

Megyn Kelly interviews Vladimir Putin on March 1, 2018.

As I watched NBC’s special, “Confronting Putin,” Friday evening, I asked myself — naively — what possessed President Putin to subject himself again to what NBC calls a Megan Kelly “grilling,” replete with supercilious questions and less-than-polite interruptions, just nine months after his first such “grilling.” It then hit me that “grilling” is in the eye of the beholder.

Reviewing the original Russian tape of the interviews, it became clear that the tête-à-tête showed a Putin looking patiently but supremely presidential to Russian viewers who could see the whole interviews, not just the selective selected excerpts aired by NBC and “interpreted” by Russophobe-de-jour Richard Haas. (A close adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Haas was among those who told him it was a swell idea to invade Iraq. When the anticipated “cakewalk” turned rather bloody, with no WMD to be found, Haas quit in July 2003 and became President of the Council on Foreign Relations where he is now well into his 15th year.)

Back to the Kelly-Putin pas de deux: At the March 1 interview the Russian President came out swinging. When Kelly asked the first time whether there is “a new arms race right now” after Putin’s announcement of Russia’s new strategic weapons, Putin reminded her that it was the U.S. that withdrew in 2002 from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. He added that he had repeatedly warned the Bush/Cheney administration that Russia would be forced to respond to the dangerous upset of the strategic equilibrium.

For some reason best known to Kelly and NBC, Kelly tried repeatedly to make the case that the U.S. decision to scrap the ABM treaty was a result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, when, she said, “the United States was reassessing its security posture.”

“Complete nonsense,” was Putin’s reply (“polniy chush” in Russian — chush ringing with onomatopoeia and a polite rendering of “B.S.”). Putin explained that “9/11 and the missile defense system are completely unrelated,” adding that even “housewives” are able to understand that. He found occasion to use “polniy chush” (or simply “chush) several times during the interview.

Russian “Interference”

It was no surprise that Kelly was armed with an array of questions about Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, and at the start of the March 2 interview asked “can we have that discussion now?” Putin said, “I think we must discuss this issue if it keeps bothering you.” And they were off on a feckless exchange with Putin replying calming to Kelly’s hectoring.

After one interruption, Putin said, “You keep interrupting me; this is impolite.” Kelly apologized, but dutifully went on to cover what seemed to be the remainder of her accusatory talking points. These included repeated insistence that Putin punish the click-bait farmers indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for violating U.S. law.

No doubt fully briefed on the fact that Kelly sports a law degree, Putin asked, “Do you have people with legal training? … We cannot even launch an investigation without cause. … Give us at least an official inquiry with a statement of facts; send us an official paper.”

Kelly: “Isn’t it enough that U.S. intelligence agencies … and now a Special Prosecutor (sic) with a criminal indictment — is that not enough for you to look into it?”

Putin: “Absolutely not. If you do not have legal training, I can assure you that an inquiry is required for this.”

Kelly: “I do.”

Putin: “Then you should understand that a corresponding official inquiry should be sent to the Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Russian Federation.”

The interview got testier toward the end, as Kelly tried to fit in all her questions, including the unsupported accusation that Syrian government forces are using chemical weapons and that Russia bears some responsibility for this.

During the back-and-forth on chemical weapons, Putin not only called the accusations against Russia a lie, but saw fit to refer to Colin Powell’s misbegotten speech at the UN just six weeks before the U.S./UK attack on Iraq: “It is a lie just as the vial with the white substance that allegedly proved that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which the CIA gave to the Secretary of State.”

For good measure, Putin threw in “Why did you encourage the government coup in Ukraine?”

Once again for the record, President Putin finished on a familiar note: “Russia and the U.S. should sit down and talk in order to get things straight. I have the impression that this is what the current President wants, but he is prevented from it by some forces. We are ready to discuss any matter, be it missile-related issues, cyberspace, or counterterrorism efforts. … But the U.S. must also be ready.”

Strong President

Sound presidential? Well, that, I’m now convinced, was the whole idea on Putin’s part. And Megyn Kelly was, in many respects, the perfect foil. The Russians also took the trouble to publish a full English transcript of the Kelly-Putin interviews of March 1 and 2 for English speakers who might be interested in what NBC left on the cutting room floor.

With less than a week before the Russian election, Putin is no doubt happy that Megyn Kelly stopped by, and that NBC provided such a well-timed opportunity to burnish his credentials for another term as President of Russia.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Savior in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he was Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and later conducted the morning briefings of The President’s Daily Brief to President Ronald Reagan’s most senior national security advisers.

Read the whole transcript at RI and found it disturbing the way Ms. Kelly deliberately came across as an impudent little snot on more than a few occasions. Her implication was that Putin was lying much of the time. This was the exact same tact taken by Mattis and Pompeo in their public dismissals of Putin’s great reveals on recent Russian weapons development: they claim not to believe it. They are flat out saying that Putin is just blowing smoke. So, I guess we have the American response to Putin’s latest warnings and entreaties: America is going to keep pounding its chest and insisting on having its way because the “commies” don’t have a case and certainly not the means to deter American aggression in the slightest. If you’ve been building a fall out shelter, keep digging. Life underground is not just for gophers anymore.

Very true, according to western MSM, everything that comes out of the Kremlin are either lies, or they are just blowing smoke, and that our politicians are the complete opposite, but anyone with some logic, can clearly see that is not the case. I don’t accept everything that comes out of the Kremlin as 100% truth, as with all governments in the world, I take what they have to say with a grain of salt, but they are definitely not completely dishonest as they are portrayed to be in the west.

As for these new weapons, I’ve read rumors about them for a few years now, and never gave it a thought. But I watched Putin’s speech in regards to these weapons, and I was happy to hear that nuclear parity has been achieved, possibly Russia now having the advantage. To which, Putin mentioned that these weapons will only be used in defense of the Russian Federation and it’s allies, I would like to know which countries it considers its allies.

As for a shelter, I don’t think the world would be living in after a nuclear war, as the world as we know it, would be a completely different from what we know it. If nuclear war happens, I hope I am ground zero, as I would be vaporized, quick and painless. Rather, than dying from a slow painful death from radiation poisoning,just my two cents.

ps: I loved how Putin stated how U.S wasted taxpayers money, as it shows his sense of humor.

Reading the entire transcript, approximately half way through I had to get up and walk around the room for a minute I was so frustrated that all Megyn Kelly did was repeat the MSM fake news in this country to a President that she should have shown respect to, instead of trying to insult him with this stuff. President Putin handled this repetition with firm, patient class.

So telling that when Americans finally do get to see, and actually hear the Russian President speak, our most valued MSM network sends in the most adolescent interviewer who almost every liberal (remember MSNBC is owned by NBC which is considered in the U.S. America’s liberal network) hates, especially the liberal women who loathe Kelly, and then NBC peddles this ridicule of a foreign leader off as a straight on honest one on one with the ever famous Putin. Just a disgrace. Every American should be embarrassed, and highly disappointed, that our highest order of media in our country represents our nation as ….well just plain ignorant.

Your use of the word “outshines” in connection with the Clintons reminded me of this quotation by John Randolph of Roanoke speaking of one of his political opponents:

“He is a man of splendid abilities, but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks like rotten mackerel by moonlight.”

Lois Gagnon

March 12, 2018 at 2:03 pm

I couldn’t quite make it through the whole video. While I agree with the comments regarding the criminality of the Clintons, their foundation and the top echelons of the power structure, I found the connection between the Rothchilds and Marxism to be a bit too ludicrous to take seriously. Clearly these guys haven’t even read Marx.

You got to be kidding.
They haven’t even read a Wikipedia article on Marx or Marxism, let alone Das Kapital itself
“Marxism” and “Marxist” became just new memes out there. Meme Du Jour mind you.
It is hilarious to hear HRC being called “Marxist” by dumb and dumbers on Fox-MSNBC-CNN
To call a quintessence of modern capitalism a “Marxist”, yeah, that is really something

I watched the video, and I can’t imagine that Jeff Sessions would have the ability to prosecute if Shipp’s charges are true. He would basically be taking on the entire Deep State, and all it’s entrenched components within the government. Shipp’s calling it a potential “constitutional crisis” is an understatement. Surely some assassinations would happen before any prosecutions even got off the ground.

I would be curious to know Ray McGovern’s take on Shipp’s charges, since they are both former CIA.

I completely agree with you, I don’t know why Putin would agree to another interview with her, after the interview he had with her back in 2017. In that interview, she acted in the same way, by asking a question in regards to “Russia’s interference in U.S’s 2016 election”, followed by rephrasing the question, a couple times more, perhaps thinking Putin would let something “slip”. But either way, he did show great restraint, being asked the same question redundantly, and never deviating from his original answer.

ps: I usually lurk on this site, but reading posts by you and others leads me to believe that not all Americans are falling for Western MSM propaganda against Russia, nor Putin. I like to read your insightful posts, and other CN regular posters, as you do post informative links to non-msm sites, that help me, and probably others, to get a better understanding of world’s events.

Thanks for the kind words Stephen. I think the best way to gage the American opinion is to base our study on emotional IQ level on up against maturity achieved. Funny how back in the 60’s the Russians were the rude ones. Role reversal is always an interesting study. My how times have changed.

Yes I’ve noticed that. In the 1960s the Russian diplomats were the grumpy 50 something grey slav men in crappy suits spouting threats and inanities. Now it’s US (and UK) “diplomats” who have taken this ridiculous role who seem to have undergone a reverse evolution. I cannot believe someone as clearly intellectually deficient as Nikki Haley could represent anyone.

Andrew I was only a kid back when the 1st Cold War was underway. What I can recall, is that although we demonized the Soviet Union, as both sides did plenty of it, there was always that calm voice from somewhere inside our U.S. Government and Russia’s promoting an era of detente. There was Molotov’s reaching out to the Eisenhower Administration to maybe finally after Stalin’s death, that our two nations could find an avenue of peace. Eisenhower’s response to Molotov is found in Eisenhower speech ‘The Chance for Peace’. Although a cautious Eisenhower did the right thing, two days after Ike delivered maybe one of the best speeches he ever delivered John Foster Dulles scuttled that development, and the American press for the most part sided with Dulles. Remember this is the McCarthy Red Scare era, so for the most part Americans were defiantly against Russia and Communism. This is pre-Rachel days, but the similarity to the events of yesteryear and today are as unsettling as one could imagine.

Here is how the Russian Press reacted.
“On April 25, Pravda and Izvestiia responded directly to Eisenhower’s speech by printing a translation and identical front-page commentaries. The editors welcomed Eisenhower’s appeal, but defended previous Soviet policies and criticized those of America. They too urged action not words. They expressed puzzlement at the contrast between Eisenhower and Dulles’ speeches. “It is difficult to judge what comprises the external policy of the USA,” they wrote. Soviet analysts were divided on the meaning of Eisenhower’s speech, but after Dulles’ address they concluded that there was littlechanceof improvingrelations.”

So, just as it was back in 1953 we Americans find our President trading barbs with N Korea leader KimJung un. Once again Russia is in the background, while at the same time the U.S. squares off with N Korea, America takes aim and puts Russia in it’s crosshairs. The chances for detente are deluded by an American media’s heavy demonization of all things Russian, and a special seemingly hatred of it’s leader Vladimir Putin, is on display for all the world to see.

Here is a PDF which goes into some deep details to what Eisenhower and Molotov were dealing with. I might add that a disappointed Winston Churchill was even for reaching out to Molotov. Although this paper is written from an American perspective, it is a great place to start, if interested, to research an opportunity loss, and how peace was not to be. As you read this paper, if you are like me, you may comprehend and then contemplate to how our history is repeating itself over once again, or as Twain said, it rhymes.

Stephen: “I don’t know why Putin would agree to another interview with her, after the interview he had with her back in 2017.”… How could he pass up the opportunity? He knows his image has been distorted in the American press and the interview gave him the chance to illustrate, once again, his superior intellect by contesting some very rude and repetitive questions in a measured and restrained manner. Even though he speaks English the translation enabled him time to consider and deflect the fallacious premise of his interlocutor(e.g that Russia hacked the American election). Megan Kelley, down and out…bring on Rachael Maddow!

Perhaps we can start a petition of sort, so as to get that Maddow to have a sit down interview with Putin. But in Maddow’s case, I hope Putin will not pull any punches. But I can predict that the interview would be a) never be televised, or b) heavily edited. Just a guess.

Stephen,…I would love to see that happen because(as Joe pointed out) the followers of Maddow “loathe Kelley” and probably wouldn’t watch her interview with Putin with the same relish that they would give to the duchess of disinformation. Maddow”s glib distortion of the facts wouldn’t get by Putin without a well articulated rebuttal. Her “facts” on foreign affairs are all fed to her by her handlers and she would have to prepare for the interview with a lot more at stake than Kelley as her style has never been confrontational.

tina

March 12, 2018 at 10:14 pm

It is called media exposure. Putin is riding a good wave right now, and we should leave it at that.

Everybody in this country, including its reputed elite women journalists, has to be a tough guy now. It’s become part of the American identity. We go crass and confrontational or we go home. We may be as dumb as a bag of hammers, but we are as tough as nails, so we say. Our bad attitude trumps your erudition and good sense every time. Thankfully, Mr. Putin is not old school and chooses to suffer these fools rather than put them in their place. His cool is the only thing saving everyone’s hide, for now.

Everything these certain Americans are doing flys in the face of Sun Tzu. Besides that, the world has eyes and ears, and believe me when I say that Putin won over more world citizens with his style of being the interviewee as opposed to Kelly’s 5th grade emotional school child performance. In other words, Kelly’s interview of Putin pleased NBC & the MSM, and in their world that’s all that matters. Please hand me the channel changer remote. Joe

Since I’ve mentioned my interchange with my cousin before, it pretty much sounded like this on a certain level, although it wasn’t a sit down, but a telephone exchange, however it all came down to this international lawyer who works for the military telling me Russia bad, America good. It matters not our many wars based on lies that have destroyed whole countries in the ME, or our continuous interference since WWII in other countries world wide that have overturned governments, or quashed leftist movements which resulted in millions of deaths, or even what we did during Yeltsin’s tenure. I suspect the vast majority will side with Megan Kelly, and see Putin as bad. Well, if Clinton could lose after spending all that money on her reelection campaign and be outdone by a handful of Russian trolls it doesn’t say much for her campaign strategies. Right after the DNC e-mails were released Clinton’s campaign manager, Mr. Mook, said the Russians did it, and I thought, oh my God they have a scapegoat, but never thought it would come to this. People blame the media for it’s ongoing propaganda, but they couldn’t do it without an educational system that encourages students to never think outside the box.

“People blame the media for it’s ongoing propaganda, but they couldn’t do it without an educational system that encourages students to never think outside the box.”…so true, Annie…critical thinking is no longer part of the curriculum as educational administrators discovered indoctrination is much more lucrative and keeps the students malleable. The paucity of civics courses in primary school fails to encourage any students that go on to college to seek any curriculum that might foster analytical studies…they must seek a more “gainful” career to pay off their student debt.

Joe Tedesky

March 12, 2018 at 10:34 pm

Annie at least coming here to ‘the Consortium’ is one way to find a little relief. I think many of us here have had that conversation with the intelligent lawyer, or relative. I also believe that although our convictions are debatable, that our beliefs are doable. Although, who ever listens to the peace advocates in America.

Once upon a time our European ancestors looked upon the world as it being a huge frontier to conquer. The European was intrigued to pioneer the vast unknown. They looked upon all indigenous as being illiterate and savage. Europe unleashed its Christian missionaries all over the world, as messengers of our Lord Almighty, and to the ‘civilized European’ this spreading of the Christian gospels was all that was needed to make everything and anything all right. That also meant if indigenous should die, then so be it, as honor and valor plus God was on the European side. Beyond right it was part of the cause. But you know this, this is nothing new.

So here we are in the 21st Century, and we find many an average American being supportive of our U.S. military aggression. I’m no different than any of my fellow Americans when it comes to feeling safe and sound, but I draw the line after a longtime reviewing our nation’s warring actions. In other words, if you just get your news from America’s corporate owned MSM, then between omissions and flat out lies your world opinion is seriously flawed. If you read only Tom Friedman, and pop the popcorn to watch Rachel or Joy Ann then your world view is definitely distorted.

The most disappointing predicament we find ourselves in, is that between our governments clamp down on fake news through search engines and social media sites, and the brother in law who hugs the mindset ‘might makes right’, we as a human species have not advanced one inch pass the 15th century. So much for Darwin.

Warning this link, isn’t for your intellectual consumption, as much as I’m leaving it for it being an example of all of what’s wrong with American media today. This is Newsweek’s take on covering Megyn Kelly’s first Putin interview from June 2017, but it doesn’t matter which Putin interview we discuss because Ms Kelly was as ignorant then as she was of late.

In any respect Annie I don’t wish to make you mad or sad, I’m just trying to drive my point home…I hope you understsnd, and get some value from my comment here. Joe

Annie

March 12, 2018 at 10:40 pm

Thanks Bob H, for responding, and I’ve mentioned this before, but no one has ever picked it up. Students are very much spoon fed by the teacher, and I say this being a teacher. There are always attempts, new programs, to try to increase analytical thinking among students, and each time if falls flat on it’s face and discarded. Changes in the educational system has a difficult time of it. One aspect of teaching which isn’t good is that each subject is taught with out integrating any other subject area which doesn’t encourage a person to develop a broader perspective when evaluating things. There was a time when they tried to do that, but again it went no where.

Joe Tedesky

March 12, 2018 at 11:41 pm

Annie my comment is under moderation. Joe

irina

March 13, 2018 at 12:18 am

I’ve been taking classes at the university level for a long time now
and one thing I’ve noticed is that many (not all, but many) instructors
are increasingly unable to ‘sort for relevance’. Everything is VERY
important, from the most trivial to the most serious. Granted that’s
something of a value judgement, but the same things is apparent
in something like Yahoo news, where an article about a school shooting
appears right next to something about Chloe Kardashian’s broken fingernail.

Joe Tedesky

March 13, 2018 at 10:05 am

Annie while I’m waiting for my comment to unmoderate I had a thought.

These people who debate with us get their news I’m surmising mostly, or maybe even strictly from our lying MSM. While you and us get our news from not only the MSM, but from alternative news sources. This would suggest we modestly are better informed.

So we are aware of what the corporate MSM is saying about our world news events, when at the same time we get informed from alternative news sites. Now our beloved friends get their news from mainly MSM news outlets. In other words you and us are aware of what the MSM is reporting like our friends, but they miss the alternative news sites leaving them being informed from only the MSM….. you Annie have learned more, but your stubborn friends debate you from their perch of ignorance. I might add we/you are outnumbered by this ignorance, and with that we struggle for belief.

Hope my comment becomes unmoderated soon. Joe

Nancy

March 12, 2018 at 12:08 pm

He must be practicing some advanced yoga to be able to stay so calm in the face of such lunacy.

Mental jujitsu ! Or perhaps Tai Chi. My favorite strategy when
things start falling apart (for example, a thunderstorm is looming
over the hayfield, with the hay ready to bale but the baler is balky),
is to mentally go through the Tai Chi sequence called “Going Back
to Ward off Monkeys”.

Notice the emphasis is on ‘Going Back’ rather than attacking.
It’s very calming and focusing and may even disperse thunderstorms,
or at least stall them off for a while. Just as Putin stalled off Kelly,
which must have been infuriating (to say the least !) for her.

Yes there must be something yoga or tai chi as Irina said, Putin probably does regularly practice which keeps him calm. I can hardly bear watching this Megyn Kelly’s interview with President Putin. Watching Kelley’s demeanor, it kind of makes me feel angry inside, but Putin stays so calm. The way Kelley questions or I would say interrogates, it is so arrogant, without any respect, or feeling for Russian President, Russia, and its people. It is sickening. Of course it is very immature behavior. And she just does what her Masters, who own the NBC tell her to do – they write out the script for her.

Megyn Kelley is not the only one. This behavior – arrogance, and disrespect – towards Russia and Putin has been very pervasive among the Ruling Establishment in the West since his 2007 speech at Munich Security Conference.

The Ruling Establishment either is ignorant of or does not care that U.S. today has this underclass of tens of millions of people. In the vast areas of its major Cities, it is not safe to drive through. These cities do not look like those of the Richest and the most Powerful Superpower in the World.

I urgently recommend that those interested in where we are
today and how we got here to read Francis Jennings’
works. (1918-2000);

Especially read THE INVASION OF AMERICA….Chapter 1
and then Chapter 2 which begins:

“European explorers and invaders discovered an inhabited
land. Had it been pristine wilderness then, it would probably
be so still today, for neither the technology nor the
social organization of Europe, in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries had the capacity to maintain, of its own resources,
outpost colonies thousands of miles from home. Incapable of
conquering true wilderness, the Europeans were highly
competent in the skill of conquering other people, and that
is what they did. They did not settle a virgin land. They
invaded and displaced a resident population….”

Perhaps you will think narratives of these times are
not “relevant” today. I would suggest that indeed they
are! Together with other sources (not mentioned here)
they begin to tell the real story in theAmerican continent.

Realist, Putin got educated in the GDR , in the 1980’s. He vowed he would never let the USSR sink into that disgrace. So it happened in the 1990’s that Russia was in chaos. Voila, here comes Putin in the early 2000’s. Would any of our leaders have done differently?

Dear Joe: your post is right on target. I thought Megan had the goods on Putin but not even close. I do not know what’s worse: her skills as a reporter or her historical amnesia. Megan had no adequate response to Putin’s points. He could have cited US lies for invading Iraq, Libya, Siria, etc. Nonetheless, he cited Powell’s lies at the UN very well. Once again, Megan Kelly was the laughing stock.

Apparently Jose Putin is not an attack dog politician. I mean maybe he is when he has to be, although in many respects he held his own up against NBC’s snarky Megyn Kelly, but still we Americans are serioisly weighted down by our own various media outlets appraisals of how well Kelly did up against this Russian tyrant.

Now I’m not calling Russia’s beloved President a tyrant, but that’s just one of the many negative titles America’s gay community has bestowed upon this resilient world leader. This fielding of hate was launched back in 2014 during the Sochi Olympics, as Dan Savage and Harvey Fierstein played the role of their becoming the ‘useful idiots’ by their exposing Russian Federation Federal Law No 135-FZ. What these two did, whether they understood what they were doing, is regrettable on several different levels. The No 135-FZ law doesn’t even mention the word homosexual or gay inside of it’s directive, or any title one could use to specifically point out the Gay community, but none the less tons of American homosexuals feel threaten to death, as demonizing Putin is but an expression of resistance to this foreign homophobe. Actually if you read this white paper by American Gay activist Brian M Heiss you will be stunned to find how a gay person in Russia is safer by far beyond his or her American counterpart. No 135-FZ is censorship of what Russians feel is unsuitable for young audience viewers. Is it the right kind of law? You tell me, but consider how there is currently an effort to stamp out what our government considers fake news, and also consider America’s own censorship laws used to advise parents of what’s suitable and what’s not for certain ages to view.

I might also prompt you to put in a search engine ‘Oliver Stone critical of Megyn Kelly’s interview of Putin’, and then get ready for the whole onslaught of MSM blasting Stone. This MSM criticism came on the heels of Stone’s interviews with Putin, and the feast du jour of our MSM is to kill the messenger. Since my politics is way more in line with Stone’s I take this criticism personally. Poor Oliver Stone, now there is one hell of a great American.

Jose always interesting. Oh I have on CNN, and hearing Max Boot only makes my fingers fly faster wanting to rival the likes of Boot, but as usual my message is drown out by the big Wurlitzer of the airways. Joe

I read that there is a new Putin documentary to be released soon (I think after the Russian election), called “World Order 2018”. President Putin is interviewed by Vladimir Solovyov, a Kremlin television host. Hopefully this interview will be less aggravating!

Ray,
I am of Russian Descent, first Canadian-born, for myself, I always felt Yeltsin was close to destroying Russia as a nation, and at one point, Yeltsin made me ashamed of my ancestral roots. But Putin has made me proud of my roots, regardless of how western MSM attempts to vilify him at every opportunity. As I’ve watched numerous interviews with him, and this interview with the presstitute Megyn Kelly, solidified my admiration for him, especially when she incessantly asked him about with U.S election interference, to which I believe was 4-6 questions in a row, or she tried to push Putin to do something about the “13 Professional Russian Trolls” , and he replied “Only if they broke Russian laws, or international agreements”, which I believe they didn’t. She did attempt to push Putin’s buttons, but Putin clearly stood his ground.

Ray, I’ve also watched some interviews with you as well, and it is people like you, that give me hope for a brighter future for this world.

The world needs more people like Ray McGovern, in every country.

So keep doing what you’re doing, hopefully you will reach enough American people, before it is too late.

A good article Ray. The problem is that the majority of Americans prefer the US government angle as expressed by the MSM. I encounter this at fora where, even if one presents solid facts that completely refute an MSM premise, people will still reject it as BS, though when challenged to provide fact-based evidence the discussion stops.

H.L. Mencken said (approx.) that “The average man avoids truth [because] it is dangerous, no good can come of it, and it doesn’t pay.” Oligarchy can rely upon a combination of fearmongering and mass media repetition of nonsense and exclusion of criticism. They also rely upon suppression of dialogue in the primary workplace venues of discourse, threats to employment security and opportunist attacks upon dissenters. And of course oligarchy has the rewards that support the duopoly racketeers and their supporters. Most know that the path to wealth and power is adoption of the very rationales that enslave them. Their social contract does not extend to taking unusual risks for others.

One of the most disgraceful things I ever seen. Makes me ashamed to be an American and afraid for our future with this type of pro-war propaganda. It seems our back street government wants war with Russia ASAP. Bringing in CIA thugs to attempt to justify the interview’s points was a frightening reminder of just who runs this country.

Well, I have met many crooked lawyers who may have done a little work getting there, even if they were selected for crookedness. There is a charming myth that there are some honest lawyers, just as there are said to be some honest judges somewhere. I haven’t met them in my twenty years of civil rights litigation. They must have barely made it through law school.

One troubling thing was how, not in the final cut, but at one point Putin, defending Russians, said that maybe Ukrainians, Tartars or Jews were responsible. I can’t speak for any Ukrainians or Tartars, but his saying “Jews” does come off as a little anti-Semetic. In my debating circle this is a strike against Putin. I want to say something in Putin’s defense; after all the rest of his words were right on but he did say it and if he is trying to charm or disarm the west this is not good.

It is more accurate to say “zionists” but the point is quite correct because they certainly did a lot more than tamper the 2016 elections. Every one of Clinton’s top ten donors was a zionist, and zionists control the mass media. Your debating circle may need to re-examine what you mean by “anti-semitic”: if that means defending democracy, then we had best all become anti-zionist right away.

jimbo – I think Putin was trying to point out possible enemies of Russia, entities who may have wanted Russia to look bad. In this case, most of the exiled Russian oligarchs are Jews. These guys moved quickly when Russia fell apart. They bought up the media (all the better to control politics with), they took over the banking sector, oil and gas and other commodities, with a little (or a lot) of help from friends in Israel. Because they controlled the media, they were able to get Yeltsin elected for a second term; all the better to loot the country.

Putin came in and laid down the law. He actually allowed them to keep their ill-gotten gains, so long as they didn’t meddle in politics (which apparently was too much to ask). I would have stripped them of everything and sent them running. I hope Russia taxes the sh*t out of them, taxes them until they bleed. They stole (yes, stole!) what should have been a benefit to the Russian people. Instead, a few opportunistic parasites ended up with most of the wealth of Russia.

Maybe the question in your debating circle should be: could Putin have been referring to the Jewish oligarchs who raped Russia and want to make Putin look bad? And then maybe you could all put your heads together and turn your attention to the U.S. Do an in-depth, careful study on who controls the U.S. media, courts, academia, communications, Hollywood, politicians, banking, foreign policy, domestic policy, etc.

And when it all comes crashing down, when the wandering Jews are set off to wander again, I hope they don’t wring their hands together and say, “See, they’re persecuting us again, and we’ve done nothing wrong.”

I don’t see it as anti Semitic. And I am Russian Jewish. US citizen. In the US since 1989. In Russia Jews are just part of 190 nationalities that live in RF. Just like Armenians, Ukranians, Tatars, Yakuts. I think the problem here was how the questions were translated to Putin. In Russian language 2 words describe people of RF: russkie and rossiyani. Russkie are ethnic Russians, rossiyani are citizens of Russia ( any ethnic backgroun). When she kept asking Russians interfered he replied how do you know they were Russians ( russkies) , maybe tatars, Ukranians , Jews.

I didn’t see the interview, but your explanation is probably correct. Why would Putin, as president in a country where there are many Jews, Tatars and Ukrainians want to express any lack of respect for any of them?
This part of the interview made the headlines on the BBC, I noticed!

Maybe Putin slipped up. Had Putin said in his speculation that it possibly was “Israelis” or “disaffected oligarchs” instead of the blanket term “Jews” that might have been less offensive to the vast majority of normal Jews like me who are left thinking Putin indicted the “world-wide Jewish conspiracy.” Then again, if, as Ray says in the article, Putin used this opportunity to campaign, maybe he purposely used the word as a trigger to the the many Russians who do think think there is a world-wide Jewish conspiracy.

I do think Putin made a mistake mentioning the Jews, but likely just a well-intended mistake. As he is well ahead of all political rivals in the election, there’s no need to try to send dog whistles to the Jewish conspiracy crowd or to any other group on anything. He’s coasting to a strong reelection that is certain.

If true, that’s an important distinction and helps explain his answer. Unfortunately, it’s a nuance that the western media likely would all be unfamiliar with, so easier just to publish it as an antisemitic slur. Putin would have been wiser not to invoke the Jews, or to immediately explain the Russkie/Rossiya distinction in the interview itself.

Otherwise, he gave as strong an interview as could be expected under hostile questioning by an interviewer who wasn’t interested in listening and learning, but in putting out charges, looking tough for her bosses back home.

This is just a weird attitude. One is not allowed to say the word “Jew” at all? Otherwise one is an antisemite? But you are fine with him mentioning other ethnicities, just not the Jews? Becauuuuse…? They are different from other humans? They are not humans? Can’t you see that you are going to the other extreme? You are not defending anybody, you are actually making it worse for those who you attempt to defend by singling them out from other humans. It’s weird. Jews are not universally good, they can commit crimes just like all other humans. Mentioning Jews together with people of other ethnicities in the context of unproved accusation is not antisemitic in any way. Could we pay attention to the context and the meaning of the whole statement rather than focus on one world?

Dax…agree, it’s a tempest in a teapot…of course you meant…”rather than focus on one word”.

Richard M

March 13, 2018 at 11:45 am

Dax, you misread my post. I didn’t say Putin was antisemitic for mentioning the Jews. I said mentioning them in that context where no context was given (the Rossiya/Russkie differentiation mentioned above) left an opening for the anti-Putin western media to make mischief with his statement. Sort of like the way, back in the US campaign season, where Putin made a comment when asked his feelings about Trump, which properly translated meant “colorful”. Instead, the western media claimed he said Trump was “bright”, underscoring the false media meme about the alleged cozy Putin-Trump relationship.

I should think it’s clear that when people, especially despised ones in our media, make reference to or mention certain people or important, sensitive events — Jews, the Holocaust, Hitler — they need to be careful their remarks are clearly stated and understood as intended. Those who are already ill-inclined towards the speaker are ready to exploit the slightest opening. Best not to even give them the opportunity, was all I was saying. As a result, in some western media reports of the interview, that Jews mention got the headline, not the fact of Putin’s very strong performance in batting back Kelly’s hostile questions.

Such is the state of the political-media world today, a harsh reality which clashes sharply with the ideal world you describe.

Richard M…I can’t speak for Dax but I don’t believe his remarks were directed so much at your comments as at the contrived interpretation in the msm about using the word “Jew’ as an epithet. Of course, you are right when you caution that its use can be intentionally perverted by adversaries i.e giving them ammunition.

Deniz

March 12, 2018 at 5:02 pm

Perhaps you could explain to them that it is only considered a debate circle in an Orwellian sense.

Cut the anti-semitic stuff. There are Jewish people who are citizens of Russia just like there are Jewish people citizens of America and many other countries. Frankly I feel many Jewish people play the anti-semitic card as if they are the only “victims” of atrocities in the world.

Why in your debating circle jimbo is it acceptable for Putin to use Ukrainian and Tartar? Is there not a lack of consistency with your debate circles separation of ethnicity, and where to apply this PC correctness?

To be honest when I heard Putin say this I thought ‘uh-oh’ because I knew Putin would get interpreted but one way. I also know that Netanyahu visits Putin almost quarterly. I think in Western Russia the reference to the people who are Jewish is simply a term to describe a certain population. Like in America Native-American is a label that fits a group, if you live in a predominantly certain ethnic group neighborhood then you live in the specified ethnicity people refer to it as…I grew up in little Italy for instance.

But you are right we live in a time where anything and everything is anti-Semitic like recently Don Lemon spotlighted the word ‘globalist’ as it being anti-Semitic, so I ask you jimbo where’s it all end. Joe

Joe, what I have read during the last many years is that President Putin has rather gone overboard to please the Jewish section of the population, and about hundred thousand have returned from Israel to open businesses etc. He certainly is not anti-semitic.

It has come to this in “The West” that if you utter the word Jew in some different context to make a point, one is immediately labeled as anti-semitic. To say Chinese, Indian, Russian, Greek, Muslim or whatever is o.k.. We remember Clapper’s famous remarks that Russians are genetically driven to do all these things they are accusing them of. I do not think comments on this CN site are anti-semitic. On a personal note, my wife’s youngest sister is married to a Jewish person – they have been together for almost four decades now since their college days.

In a country or society where you can not even use the word Jew in a negative context, no literature is possible. Where is this freedom of expression then which they tout everyday in MSM?

Actually Dave I do believe that in the U.S. there are plenty of Jews who agree with us on CN. In fact how many who comment here may be Jewish? Dave you know how it is always risky and dangerous to paint anyone or group of people with the broad brush of absolutism. Although today with attacks on fake news, and this attitude of I’m right your wrong, we Americans have painted ourselves into an impossible to get out of corner. Here again our Constitution should interrupt these acts to subvert our freedoms, but who is really following that rule of law anymore. Joe

Whenever all the Power passes into hands of a group of people, or a few like Lenin and his Politburo who as Solzhenitsyn wrote did not represent Russians, or an individual like Stalin which lead to horrible repressions of the Soviet State, there is no democracy left or even possible.

We are at that stage or very close to it now here in this country where most of Financial, Media, Academia, and other power has passed into the hands of small section or group of society. It is something similar to Soviet State, people here are afraid to discuss it. And almost there is no discussion allowed about it. People who do it are silenced immediately, and stripped of everything. How come the people like Richard Haass, who were the architects of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria Wars still wield so much power? Richard Haass has been the head of CFR for a very long time. These are the people who wield all power behind the throne.

All we can do is to pray that these people do not take the World down to the path to nuclear annihilation, which it seems like is getting nearer with every passing day.

jimbo

March 13, 2018 at 7:04 am

How Ukrainians and Tartars feel I just don’t know. Had I read Tartar or Ukrainian press reports it is likely that they are upset, singled (tripled?) out like that by political rival Putin. But the Ukrainians and Tartars come from a regions where there are actual beefs between the parties. Jews, however, are everywhere and Putin seems to have gone out of his way to be fair with Jews (some of his best friends LOL) so his reference seems to come from left field. Maybe, it’s no big deal in Russia as our actual Russian-Jewish comment writer above said. Maybe Putin was talking, a la Trump, pretense free like he talks with his friends. Whatever, unless he addresses this it will still stick in the craw of Jews and be used against Putin when he needs something like this the least.

Thank you Ray for your excellent analysis. And, of course, Nat, Chelsea and people of Consortiumnews.

I think what we’re experiencing here is the new formula of news analysis that is uniquely contemporary. Almost full circle without additional editing bias, it almost feels like being in the jury room, which I’ve often likened to the very most democratic experience our legal system provides. Somehow, as if by pure magic, honesty “reads” to us. It must be a feature of thousands of years of survival experience. Sequential lying becomes obvious and makes us uncomfortable, and that is the experience here.

The careful readers that Robert Parry attracted over time complete the circle and here we have it! The Truth…

There is an important new article about the US Army’s intentions geopolitically against Russia at Off Guardian which I will link. This is more than likely the source of the substantial tension between our Countries.

Remarkably candid document from a U.S. Army study. Interesting they can see matters from a Russian point of view and admit that the Russian response is rational. They make no bones about “meddling” or “interference” in Russian internal affairs and are forthright about the overriding intention of carving out the most “advantageous” position possible for American accessibility and control of resources and markets (moneymaking interests). They appear to understand, yet accept, the risks of confrontational competition. There is no suggestion within the study of possibilities for cooperative development.

Dr. Ahmed provides “broadening” commentary where needed. Such as:

“Despite Hoagland’s obligatory lipservice to ‘good governance’ and ‘civil liberties’, neither feature in any meaningful sense in NATO’s priorities. The Central Asian republics are among the most repressive, anti-democratic regimes in the world, consistently lambasted by human rights organizations for their horrific torture and persecution of any political dissent. ‘Democracy’ promotion clearly does not mean actual ‘democracy’?—?it simply means a geopolitical alignment with NATO, hostility toward Russia, and an opening up of the economy to US and Western foreign investors, human rights be damned”

Or this:

“A major priority, then, for US geopolitical strategy is how to break apart these alliances and coalitions between US rivals, which challenge “US economic and strategic dominance”.
One useful mechanism is the nuclear card, which contrary to conventional opinion, has been played far more recklessly by the West than Russia.”

Really informative article Bob…thanks. So much more here that I didn’t even touch upon.

Thanks for this link. Funny how this doesn’t get much play in the MSM. It really shows that the USA’s intentions for Russia are just like our intentions globally, straight out of Perkin’s “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”. The only trouble is our “jackals” don’t have any teeth when it comes to Putin. One can only hope that some day we will learn that half a pie is better than none.

I’m going to forego watching/reading this interview for the time being, but to me it’s typically damning of the U.S. media environment that the only way to get a complete record of an NBC interview is to go to Russia’s official website.

In the NBC TV program “Confronting Putin” M. Kelly was given the last word, standing boldly outdoors with the Kremlin towers in the background, with her final comments. Can’t recall what she said, but at least no words of thanks for the kind reception and for the time he spent with her. I came in in the middle of the program and will see the video links later, with the full interview.

There are very delicate ways of pushing a certain agenda in the recording, how cameras and lights are placed, for example. Kelly is in the foreground with bright lights shining on her, giving an impression of a fair angel of the truth, while Putin is more in the shadow. The camera crew was probably from US?

All in all, her interviews are completely classless, some kind of Nuernberg Trial, with Russia on the bench of the accused.
At least she will not be accused by MSM as being a Russian stooge, as Oliver Stone is seen.

Great article but I would suggest the title “NBC’s Clueless Boost for Putin” may be off the mark, perhaps a more accurate title would be “NBC’s Self-Serving Boost for Putin”. After all, who has done more to relentlessly hype Russia and Putin as a threat since the 2016 election, and more importantly who has the most to lose if Putin — the existential threat created by this hype — doesn’t remain in power? Rachel Maddow & Co. have far too much time and effort already expended into creating Putin as the most evil dude ever. To elevate a new leader their viewers have never heard of to the same status would be a major setback — and more importantly it would cost them precious ad revenue.

Our Swedish tv journalists have very bad manners as well, and we have our ideas where they copied them from.
They are also totally given to herd psychology and believe in whatever is fed them through the “correct” channels.

A growing number of my compatriots loathe them and never watch tv news anymore. There is hope.

I watch the entire interview and I must say your summary is spot on. Perhaps Ms Kelly will now understand that she cannot mess with Mr. Putin. he will trance her every time. One can only imagine the delight with which direction people watch this farce.

The deliberate misinterpretation of Putin’s response to the “meddling” charges represents another low point in the media’s (and Democrats) crusade to demonize him (see NYT “After Putin Cites Jews, Democrats Implore Trump To Extradite Russians”). Quickly followed, I have just noticed, by the UK’s just-announced determination to pin the “nerve agent” rap on the Russians too – based on a series of speculative links which don’t even approach what might be called circumstantial evidence. So, glancing at the MSM today, one could assume that Putin is not only anti-semitic but is “highly likely” to have authorized nerve agent assassinations in Britain. I can almost hear Hillary – “can’t we just drone him?”

As someone on Russian TV said: “We have ex-agents all over the world, but interestingly enough they only die in London.” I think Russian FSB should expel all the brits from the country. Why? Why not? These seem to be the new rules of the game.

What that really means is lying by omission to the American people, clearly illustrated in NBC’s censorship of those parts of the interview with the most negative consequences regarding intelligence-military psychological operations (Russiagate) and international law-breaking United States foreign policy.

It would be an extremely instructive and valuable project – frankly, necessary – to isolate those portions of the historic Putin-Kelly interview NBC left out (censored) of their broadcast seen by Americans, for doing so would shine profound “sunlight” on secret media-information manipulation which Americans urgently need to know, grasp, or otherwise fully understand.

Not only is it immeasurably important for Americans to understand NBC’s attempted deceit, censorship and/or omission with regard to the Putin-Kelly interview. Such an intentional, obvious-to-some effort to propagandize, especially considering the immense current consequential dangers associated with failure to provide the full story-transcript, must become seen and understood by all of humanity on Earth.

This may end up posting twice. Just had a weird glitch, when I hit post my comment disappeared. Anyway what I was saying is that I saw a youtube video of PBS’s Judy Woodruff’s interview of Jill Stein where they showed the entire interview and marked the places that PBS cut. It was very enlightening, and I’d love to see someone do the same with this interview.

Thanks Ray for the details (Syrian gas) on Putin’s interview’s purpose: JFK took to the TV cameras in 1960 and won over Nixon, although tricky D. was the better debater, maybe that’s just politics; his harassment of Pussy Riot is shameless, and ungentlemanly to say the least; and why no discussion of Ed Snowden’s refugee status? At least someone is keeping our American hero and freedom fighter from the CIA–as you know best.

Megyn Kelly asked Putin: “But it was not Americans. It was Russians. And it was hundreds of people, a monthly budget of 2.5 billion dollars, all designed to attack the United States in a cyber warfare campaign. You are up for re-election right now. Should the Russians be concerned that you had no idea this was going on in your own home country, in your own hometown?”

$2.5 billion per month? Where does she get this figure from? Just plucked from thin air? If true (which I highly doubt), and it’s not the Russian government, then somebody had some pretty deep pockets and really wanted to smear Putin. Who has money like this?

Perhaps it’s part of the missing Pentagon funds Rumsfeld spoke of on Sept. 10, 2001. Or they could have used them long ago. In the UK, Jeremy C., who has requested dialogue with Russia in light of the worsening relations, spoke in the House of Commons how the infamous Russian oligarchs donated 800,000 UKP to the conservative party. Get out of that one PM May!

Yeah that “$X/month” thing keeps getting bigger and bigger, probably in an attempt to respond to the scorn from those not infected with anti-Russia propaganda that $100,000, 46% of it spent post-election, was allegedly able to counter the $1.8 billion the Clinton campaign flushed down the sewer. The first time I asked for evidence the sum was $1.5 million/month. I asked for the source for that number and was immediately attacked as a stupid Trump supporter who’ll look like a fool when Mueller gets done peeling his onion. Or stacking his bricks. Or whatever.

Parenthetically, that’s why pathological narcissist Barack Obama has visceral contempt for Putin. Because Putin didn’t buy into the Obama as “smartest person in the room” myth. And Putin revealed Obama to be the tongue-tied light weight he really is when he’s not tethered to his tele-prompters. And Obama hates him for it.

BTW, Obama and his warped ego personalized business with Putin and Russia. That arrogant but stupid half-wit clown set the predicate for the current wreckage that is the U.S. – Russia relationship.

Not only Obama. Many western politicians that virtue signal a lot. None of them likes him. They feel exposed talking to him. They know hes much smarter than they are and that he isnt fooled by their fake moralities and thus hypocrisy.

Excellent interpretation of the Putin-Kelly interview. I’ve spent almost 50 years in and out of the USSR and Russia. I was honestly ashamed as an American of NBC’s naive explanation of the pas de deux. While NBC was claiming various points won by Kelly, I was seeing exactly the opposite – Putin was winning the discussion the eyes of his own country’s citizen. It’s hard to believe that we’re back to Cold War assessments of our Russian counterparts and have failed to do a better job of understanding the Russians.

“It was no surprise that Kelly was armed with an array of questions about Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, and at the start of the March 2 interview asked “can we have that discussion now?” Putin said, “I think we must discuss this issue if it keeps bothering you.” And they were off on a feckless exchange with Putin replying calming to Kelly’s hectoring. After one interruption, Putin said, “You keep interrupting me; this is impolite.””

Welcome to American political dialogue President Putin; American political dialogue of the AM radio and cable TV news channels variety.

I haven’t watched the interview, but based on various reports from sources I trust, what struck me was that Kelly, like all the so-called “journalists” on cable media, tried to put the man on the defensive. And he’s too smart to fall for it, and didn’t feel the need so many of the “guests” on those interview programs have to put up politely with that “chush.” It was, I think, one of the mistakes Sanders made. He wasn’t going to win any of the rabid Clinton cultists, and it was clear to everyone what the media were doing. I still think he could have called them on it.

I saw it and its true. You could see how much angrier she got the longer the interview went, because he didnt get baited by her pathetic tries. At the end of the interview she had a totally contorted face in anger and disgust and shook her head and made arrogant and distrustful expressions many times.

What was also interesting, that she often stated lies as facts and ticked out with her questioning, throwing accusation towards him towards the end, even things he had already answered several times. She reacted like the stereotypical leftist extremist, who just starts spewing out/repeating lies and insults when exposed in their hypocrisy. You could literally see how she had to hold herself back many times, to not look like a complete lunatic.

Jake between the comfortable setting and Megyn’s clean appearance her interview was one step above a bad cop badgering the accused in the police interrogation room. All that was missing, was the alternate good cop, and of course the beating of the accused with a rubber hose. Joe

I saw Megan Kelly being interviewed about the Putin interview–I can’t remember where, but she referred to herself and Putin as “two silverbacks circling each other.” What chutzpah! Thinking that she was his equal in some way. Whatever you may think of Putin, he is a head of state of a powerful country, and Megan Kelly is a hack journalist, still on the make, thinking she can score a kill here.

Great article by Ray McGovern. Megan Kelly was pretty pathetic & it was embarrassing to watch. Putin put Kelly in her place & made her look like a silly schoolgirl, amateur journalist writing for a junior high newspaper? Since her resignation from that other paragon of invented fake news, but from a right wing, conservative viewpoint at Fox News, Kelly has been a ratings disaster for NBC. Could you imagine Trump being grilled & subjected to a bunch of nonsense & innuendo at the RT Channel by a very average Journalist, & having to listen to a bunch of invented MSM twaddle? Mr Putin handled the interview with aplomb & countered Kelly’s riduculous claims with dignity? The more I see off Putin, in interviews, the more impressive he seems, & the most sane compared to the crazy, unhinged Western Leaders & especially POTUS Trump? My suggestion to Megan Kelly is that she leaves the interviews a real journalist like the ones at Consortium News & to Oliver Stone, who at least treated Putin with the honour & respect he deserved, as a World Leader of a powerful nation!

I basically agree with this observation, but it did remind me of an awful interview of Alexander Dugin by Oksana Boyko. She came across as if she were auditioning for Megan Kelly’s job. It seemed Dugin had interesting things to say but he kept being interrupted by Boyko. The interview was a disaster and the fault was all Boyko’s.

It’s very common mistake to call all people from Russia – Russians, actually we are Rossiyane, but not so many foreigners know about that, so we kind of used to it. But for a journalist conducting an interview with the heard of Russia it’s absolutely inappropriate. And she was saying this over and over again, so maybe he couldn’t hack it anymore: “Maybe they are not even Russians, but Ukrainians, Tatars or Jews, but with Russian citizenship, which should also be checked…” (The translation from Russian is not accurate). So the real message was – there are so many nationalities live in Russia and we are all Rossiyane but why you are so sure that the only Russians (one of the nationalities) are the bad guys, why not someone by other nationality? I think he just wanted to accent her incompetence, that’s all. Don’t take too seriously, and by the way Russian audience got it quite right because in Russian it sounds absolutely correct.

Putin is a fascinating guy. I spent two hours watching the Kelly-Putin show. Mr. McGovern’s point which I read earlier in the day kept coming back to me. You realize that both were using the other. Kelly to improve her celebrity and feed her hungry audience and Putin, in Mr. McGovern’s words, to burnish his image in the world but mainly for the Russian people and the election.

If you could stand the smuggery of Kelly it was really a fascinating interview The how often did you beat your wife in the form of come on Vlad, admit it. And the use of the term whataboutism by Kelly was terrific, sure we do more meddling than you but just for my audience and rating, admit you did, too. Besides we’re good and you’re bad and no more whataboutism talk.

And you had to love the body language of Kelly, just two equals engaged in a question and answer show.

Tillerson called home early from rough Africa trip
(or was he called home early to be summarily FIRED by the foremost ‘ugly american’ Donald Trump…?)

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s first visit to Africa is ending early because of “pressing demands,” according to the State Department, cutting short what has proved to be a bumpy trip.

“Due to demands in the secretary’s schedule he is returning to the US one day early, after concluding official meetings in Chad and Nigeria,” said Steve Goldstein, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs.

Tillerson’s trip, which sought in part to repair any damage done by Trump’s reported use of vulgarity to refer to African countries, was met by criticism of the diplomat’s patronizing tone.

The US has been continuously displaying behavior inappropriate for a superpower and world leader. During US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s Africa tour, he warned African nations not to “forfeit any elements of your sovereignty” into arrangements with China in his speech at the African Union (AU) headquarters in Ethiopia. AU chairman Moussa Faki responded, “I think the Africans are mature enough to engage in partnerships of their own volition which will be useful for the country.”

Trump’s strategy is taken straight out his Art of The Deal playbook? And it’s a ridiculous way to govern & run a Nation of 325 million people? Trump keeps everything chaotic so those around him don’t know what will happen next, like a swirling hurricane of destruction whose course is constantly changing, Trump places himself in the center, the calm eye in the storm of chaos & disfunction? Trump uses people to serve his vain interests then discards them like soiled diapers? Tillerson is the latest “soiled diaper” to have outlived his usefulness & the most recent to depart Trumps revolving door Whitehouse & although he wasn’t the greatest diplomat ever, at least, he came from a business environment & could look at things from a Global perspective? Trump, the laziest & most mentally incoherent & incompetent President ever to grace the Office, has delegated responsibility to War hawks & war mongers in a attempt to appease America’s Deep (Fascist) State that rules over a brainwashed population, kept in the dark & like mushrooms, fed on Political & MSM propagandist crap? Now with the appointment of Pompeo to replace Tillerson, a confirmed war mongering hawk that’s the death of any US diplomacy in the World & you can kiss any chance for peace in the Middle East & the Iran deal goodbye & the meeting with Nth Korea will be sabotaged? Along with its Trade War’s announcement & its belligerence with protecting its corrupt Petrodollar economic system, there’s is no chance of peace in our World as Deepstate America & its zero sum game mentality won’t allow it? America, once a beacon of hope, has now become a Fascist State & is the greatest threat to life on Earth, that has ever existed, since that asteroid slammed into the Yucatan peninsula & wiped out the Dinosaurs? That Asteroid couldn’t be stopped but America, can & must be stopped, before we are all consumed in a nuclear fireball?

how can we cast aspersions at Vlad Putin as if our despicable behavior toward Other Nations do not exist!?!
(:)

President Trump has ousted Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and said he will replace him with CIA Director Mike Pompeo. Trump announced the news on Twitter this morning. He also said CIA Deputy Director Gina Haspel will be tapped to succeed Pompeo at the CIA. Both would need to be confirmed by the Senate. If confirmed, Gina Haspel will become the first woman to head the CIA.

Gina Haspel was directly involved in the CIA’s torture program under the George W. Bush administration. She was responsible for running a secret CIA black site in Thailand where prisoners were waterboarded and tortured.

She was one of the people that ran a CIA black site where prisoners were mercilessly tortured, waterboarded, etc. And she, we understand, was the agent who led the destruction of the CIA torture tapes at the direction of the main torture ringleader, Jose Rodriguez, at the Central Intelligence Agency. That is the person who now is going to be the number two at Donald Trump’s CIA. And Susan Rice, Obama’s ambassador to the U.N., and all these other Democrats are up in arms because a Republican was bragging about her being, you know, the first woman to be named to such a high position, and that, in fact, Obama had also named a woman to a high position in the CIA. The objection is not the black site, not the torture, not the destruction of tapes, but that there was gender equality somehow under Obama, and now Trump has picked this woman. I mean, that’s the state where we’re at now in our discussion about these policies. The fact is that Trump’s administration: Islamophobes, billionaires, bigots and torture lovers.

“In stark contrast to the whispers of shadows cited by the US and Europe regarding Russia, to begin understanding the scope of US political meddling abroad, one needs only to visit the US State Department and corporate-funded National Endowment for Democracy’s (NED) own website.

“Industrial-Scale Meddling

“US meddling is so extensive that NED is broken into multiple subsidiaries (National Democratic Institute (NDI), International Republican Institute (IRI) and Freedom House) which in turn, are joined by parallel organizations such as George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, USAID, the UK’s DFID and many more. […]

“NED lists its extensive funding for organizations and fronts in over 100 different nations around the globe.

“Within each nation, NED funds between a handful to several dozen organizations posing as legal firms, media platforms, environmental groups and human rights advocates. They collectively create the components of a political machine used to pressure incumbent governments to heed US interests, or overthrow them if they fail to.

“Because the NED and recipients of its funding are increasingly exposed as a form of political subversion, NED has opted to list its funding in some nations in very general terms, never revealing the actual organizations or individuals receiving US money. Many organizations in targeted nations refuse to disclose their funding to the public. Many even possess the gall to solicit public donations despite receiving (and concealing) extensive funding from the US government. […]

“Remarkably, as Washington accuses Russia of political meddling within the United States, the NED openly lists nearly 100 subversive activities or organizations they are funding inside of Russia itself. Beyond what is listed on NED’s website is support the US and Europe is providing unpopular opposition figures like Alexei Navalny, the now deceased Boris Nemtsov, Yevgeniya Chirikova (NED-funded Strategy 31), Lev Ponomarev (NED-funded Moscow Helsinki Group), Liliya Shibanova (NED-funded GOLOS) and many others who have been repeatedly caught conspiring with American diplomats and financiers backing their subversive activities.

“Were evidence to surface that Russia did any of the above forms of meddling, including maintaining entire stables of opposition figures who regularly filter in and out of the Russian Embassy in a targeted nation, it would be categorically condemned by Washington. Yet Washington flagrantly engages in overt political subversion, not just in Russia, but in (at least) 100 other nations around the globe, including nations the US is currently outright occupying militarily.

“For empire, what it fears the most is competition. It seeks to be the sole hegemon with all else beneath it. The US does not oppose political meddling in a sovereign nation’s affairs, it opposes the obstruction of its own meddling worldwide and seeks to eliminate others offering better alternatives to coercive subjugation by Washington”

By Jeffrey D. Sachs
OCTOBER 30, 2016
.
THE SINGLE MOST important issue in allocating national resources is war versus peace, or as macroeconomists put it, “guns versus butter.” The United States is getting this choice profoundly wrong, squandering vast sums and undermining national security. In economic and geopolitical terms, America suffers from what Yale historian Paul Kennedy calls “imperial overreach.” If our next president remains trapped in expensive Middle East wars, the budgetary costs alone could derail any hopes for solving our vast domestic problems.

The scale of US military operations is remarkable. The US Department of Defense has (as of a 2010 inventory) 4,999 military facilities, of which 4,249 are in the United States; 88 are in overseas US territories; and 662 are in 36 foreign countries and foreign territories, in all regions of the world. Not counted in this list are the secret facilities of the US intelligence agencies. The cost of running these military operations and the wars they support is extraordinary, around $900 billion per year, or 5 percent of US national income, when one adds the budgets of the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies, homeland security, nuclear weapons programs in the Department of Energy, and veterans benefits. The $900 billion in annual spending is roughly one-quarter of all federal government outlays.

The United States has a long history of using covert and overt means to overthrow governments deemed to be unfriendly to US interests, following the classic imperial strategy of rule through locally imposed friendly regimes. In a powerful study of Latin America between 1898 and 1994, for example, historian John Coatsworth counts 41 cases of “successful” US-led regime change, for an average rate of one government overthrow by the United States every 28 months for a century. And note: Coatsworth’s count does not include the failed attempts, such as the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

This tradition of US-led regime change has been part and parcel of US foreign policy in other parts of the world, including Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. Wars of regime change are costly to the United States, and often devastating to the countries involved. Two major studies have measured the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. One, by my Columbia colleague Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard scholar Linda Bilmes, arrived at the cost of $3 trillion as of 2008. A more recent study, by the Cost of War Project at Brown University, puts the price tag at $4.7 trillion through 2016. Over a 15-year period, the $4.7 trillion amounts to roughly $300 billion per year, and is more than the combined total outlays from 2001 to 2016 for the federal departments of education, energy, labor, interior, and transportation, and the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

It is nearly a truism that US wars of regime change have rarely served America’s security needs. Even when the wars succeed in overthrowing a government, as in the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Moammar Khadafy in Libya, the result is rarely a stable government, and is more often a civil war. A “successful” regime change often lights a long fuse leading to a future explosion, such as the 1953 overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government and installation of the autocratic Shah of Iran, which was followed by the Iranian Revolution of 1979. In many other cases, such as the US attempts (with Saudi Arabia and Turkey) to overthrow Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, the result is a bloodbath and military standoff rather than an overthrow of the government.

WHAT IS THE DEEP motivation for these profligate wars and for the far-flung military bases that support them?

The worst interview I have ever seen and the worst editing. Megan Kelly was asking the same irrelevant questions time and time again ignoring the very relevant answers. Just waiting for the moment where Mr. Putin would lose his cool and give a snarky answer. The one she needed to make him look like a reckless madman for the American viewing audience. Add some ” expert” commentaries, a supervillain soundtrack and you’ve got yourself one helluva propaganda piece. Good job.
I can’t help being very impressed by Mr. Putin’s media-savvy restraint and I’m very sorry he has to put up with this kind of BS

Megyn was very rude to him and I’m sure that she would never talk to Obama or Hillary like that. Her constantly interrupting him was horrible and it just made her look small.

Then we have the guy who tells us that those 13 Russians (ham sandwiches) would not have placed advertisements on Facebook if Putin hadn’t told them to do it. This was too get people here more on board with the propaganda. I just can’t believe how many people have lost their critical thinking skills. BTW, most of the ads were placed after the election was over. How did they get people to vote for Trump?

Good grief, I’m so tired of Russia Gate that was created as an excuse for why Hillary lost the election. She did because people didn’t want her to be president. It’s this simple.

She lost because Comey released e-mail on Friday, three days before the election. The e-mails proved her innocent of any wrong doing, but the public was inundated with media impressions of associative guilt — along with Trump’s “Crooked Hillary” Tweets that became memes all across the spurious social media expanse.

I find it curious that the author repeatedly states that President Putin claimed to have attained “parity” with the US through the new weapons systems he spoke of in his address of a few days ago. No wayyyy, José. I’ve watched the entire subtitled and simultaneously translated speech, and read the courtesy translation. He claimed outright technical & operational superiority against any current or next generation defensive system or strategy fielded by any country on the planet. The Americans snarkily walked away -or so they thought- from mutual assured destruction as a limitation on their strategic flexibility even though, insane as it is, one could argue alongside the Russians that MAD had contributed to international stability for 30 years. For them to have been able, unilaterally, to reimpose it through technological advance doesn’t speak of a country that has just managed to catch up to it’s adversary.

Dear Ray, I think, some of what you’ve mentioned here, was left out of the NBC broadcast. I was very disturbed by the propaganda comments interspersed between sections of the parts that were broadcast, and I emailed Pres. Putin, about it. I wanted him to know, that the “Intelligence community”, obviously, used the interview for propaganda purposes, to the US audience. I was very upset.